> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:22:24 +1000
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [dinosaur] Tyrannosaurs and Deinodons (was re New Konzhukovia species (temnospondyl) from Permian of South America + Early Triassic polar coprolites + more papers
> Anthony <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Were Deinodontidae and Deinodontoidea actually created, or is their
> > existence assumed based on backforming from _Deinodon_ & the higher clades
> > which were named for _Tyrannosaurus_?
> > (I've seen backforming in linguistics, but not in nomenclature)
> Deinodontidae was named by Brown (1914). Same for Deinodontoidea.
> > So, because Cope and Marsh forgot to define Deinodon's clades, we can't use
> > it? :)
> We can use Deinodontidae - if we want to. But why should we want to?
> Deinodontidae is just not useful as a clade, because it's pegged to
> _Deinodon_ (a nomen dubium). Tyrannosauridae (and -oidea etc) is a
> far more useful clade because it's pegged to _Tyrannosaurus_.
...which brings us back to what others were saying about _Ceratops_.
> > So, the ICZN assumes that, if something has a name, there's no need to worry
> > about finding a place for it - it already has one?
> > That does sound handy.
> I don't understand what you're asking/saying here.
from what I understand of your reply...
in the ICZN, if something is given a name, it automatically has a place in the hierarchy, a location in the Linnean ranks (king Philip etc)
...whereas in any system outside the ICZN, just because something has a name, doesn't mean it has a place.
......meaning that, while _Deinodon_ has a name and a place in the ICZN, it is an orphan that should be left in the bulrushes of the wilderness.